walk in the woods

Well, my post included a random image from my clipboard so I deleted it.  But the image from hell keeps reappearing from the dead!  And it appears I can't delete it from my profile, so behold, an image from a Code 42 install.

(From MattR: I set the image size to zero to get rid of it. This might be easier from a laptop.)

12 hours ago, yknot said:

How many of those kids realistically have ever been part of the scouting universe from the National perspective? A tragic mistake, because if scouting was living up to its own values, those kids would have been the target audience. But the corporate marketing reality is that they are not and never have been the goal. The market at least in recent decades has been families that want their kids to get to Eagle and are able to spend on on all the uniform and advancement permutations along the way. 

Not to defend National too much, but, they've made several attempts to reach underserved youth.  That was part of the thrust of the ISP.  Learning for Life, Scoutreach, Scouting and Soccer, generally fall into that category.  They may be bad at it, but, they've certainly tried.

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Fascinating - thank you.  It sure looks like the BSA has been taking on a lot of debt for some reason - the Summit I imagine. 

I doubt Summit expenses would be listed with Accounts Payable.  Aren't Accrued Liabilities typically the cost of services rendered but no invoice has been received?  I'm guessing Law Firm Fees and the like.

21 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I understand your point - I think you are defining a new Scouting model - a confederation of councils based on the same program and materials.  Maybe 50 or 100 different councils that all use the same program and function independently.  I would think that even if such a model were to occur that they would derive representation in the WOSM through a central organization.  From the WOSM website:

What would be the value to 50 or 100 local councils in the US to all join individually?  What would be the value to the WOSM?  Does Scouts UK really want to have individual relationships with a whole bevy of US councils?  I suspect not.

I expect that if 50 councils buy the IP rights of the BSA, they will create a small central organization to co-ordinate that work.  Place the international representation of the US based former BSA councils in that entity.

 

Actually I'm not proposing a federation of councils.  If the National Council of the BSA were to be dissolved, there are no more regions, areas, or councils as we understand them today.  What we call Councils today are independent Not-for-profit corporations licensed by the National Council (which in this scenario no longer exists) to deliver scouting.  Areas and Regions have no meaning outside of the national organization because they are ust amalgamations of Councils, which are now undefined.  Without National, there are just 270-odd NFP corporations scattered around the country that used to be licensees of the now defunct BSA, desperate to survive or merge.  

So let's assume the 270 NFPs are all given the BSA IP to use as their own.  This is where the Thunderdome really gets rolling.  Former boundaries are meaningless.  Former relationship to the BSA is meaningless.  The first mover gets the spoils.  It's not too hard to imagine the NFPs in TX and OK merging into a much leaner organization known as the Red River Scouts of America, recruiting all the units possible within their former boundaries to be part of their program.  Nearly all units agree because the RRSA owns the local rights to Eagle.  With a critical mass of scouts, the RRSA ultimately consumes/recruits all the NFPs all the way up through the Dakotas to deliver the RRSA program, ultimately changing it's name to the Great Plains Scouts of America.    In the northeast the same dynamic plays out with the formation of the New England Scouts of America around NY and points north, ultimately growing south through PA, MD, DE, and DC.  It's not hard to imagine 5 or 6 new independent regional scout organizations in the US that have limited incentive to cooperate/coordinate since they all have the same rights to the IP.  As the programs strengthen and diverge they'd start selling their brands across the country.

This scenario is effectively the Power-5 Football Conference model (humor me and let's leave B1G and Pac-12 in the mix for now).  You could argue that they submit to the NCAA so the scouting model would dictate a master organization.  But, I believe the scouting model would play out differently because 1) no national scouting organization is going to spread money around like the NCAA, and 2) each of the regional scouting organizations would have everything they need with regards to IP.

As for WOSM, it's an international bureaucracy that will go where the money leads them in order to perpetuate their existence.  They'd be recruiting the new regional organizations in the US, not the other way around.  Beyond that, WOSM has already set the standard for membership.  I'm going by what's on wikipedia, so take that into account, but that page lists 40 different scouting organizations in the European Region (again, roughly the same geographical size as the US or certainly North America).  According to the page of Liechtenstein, their organization only has 1,100 members.  The wikipedia page for WOSM member Scouts Ireland list 40,000 youth members.  So, Scouts UK already has relationships with a large number of small member organizations.  Admitting regional US scouting organizations as members would only be exceptional because of WOSM's Nationalistic bias.  And that assumes the US regional organizations even cared about WOSM at all.  My money says the GPSA tells WOSM to get off.

Now if the BSA IP goes to auction, we'll all be part of the LDS Scouts of America in the near future.  And Philmont would be open.  But, that's another thread. :)

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's my point. From the comments on this board, its clear we were all raised that way. I was free range. I roamed the neighborhood and local woods with a large pod of kids. We had drama, crises, fights, danger, you name it. We worked it out among ourselves. No parent involved. No parent even knew unless someone squawked. We learned how to interact with each other. We had bigger families and learned how to handle sibling relationships and responsibilities. Kids are not growing up with those opportunities and skills anymore and that's why I think it might be useful to look at whether scouts needs to look at ways to teach those skills. The current patrol method kind of assumes kids come to us already having some of those skills but from what I've seen, they do not. Simply throwing them into the fire or the deep end of the pool without any kind of road map and hoping they figure it out is possibly one reason why we lose so many 10 and 11 year olds. It might be worth looking at.  

Ah okay.  Seems like a great argument for killing the NSP concept.

17 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I imagine there is a vote required, but ultimately you are correct.

However, I suspect the selection of some other Scouting organization in the US would be met with a collective "so what?"  As a country we are inherently too independent to care what the WOSM says when picking an activity for our kids.  The competing Scouting programs in the US gave not gotten traction because they are not the BSA and have neither it's personal connections nor it's ubiquitous reach and facilities.

Question is does the USA need a National scouting organization?  The EU countries are roughly the same geographical size as the US, roughly the same GDP, but with more population.  The EU has how many scouting organizations?  30ish?  Why not have the mega-councils referenced in this thread form individual organizations, give them all access to the BSA IP and let them innovate from there?  Use the RBOC Model.  They could all be part of WOSM.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Kids today are not taught to work in a team or in a subordinate position to anyone else, they are taught and raised to do what they want and what works for them. Tahawk mentioned trauma. The trauma I'm talking about is when you've got a room full of kids taught that their individual rights, opinions and interests are what are most important and not anyone else's. The loudest rule the room; the more laid back hang back in misery and quit.

I think you've identified an effect but might be missing the cause.  I was never "taught" those things either.  Growing up my mother, and every mother in town, kicked their progeny out of the house by 9am all summer weather permitting.  We met up at the ball park, played baseball, or whatever we decided to do.  There wasn't an adult in sight, no structured rules, so we figured it out on our own.  Older kids looked out for the younger because their dad said look out for your kid brother.  I'd argue we've taught kids to be dependent on adults and we tend to ostracize the natural leaders instead of letting the kids figure it out.  We adults have come to prefer compliant kids rather than the energetic and we've taught them to be meek.

The official ad informing potential victims of the filing deadline has been running every couple hours on Golf channel all weekend.  I assume the other NBC properties likewise.

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

That's not entirely correct unless something has changed since 2013.  https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/30/active/#:~:text=The Scout must meet the unit's reasonable expectations for activity.&text=noteworthy circumstances that have prevented,taken hold and been exhibited.

If the unit fails to uphold a consistent standard then yes, the default is effectively, "Dues paying"= Active. 

https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/mechanics-of-advancement/scouts-bsa/#

Quote

4.2.3.1 Active Participation

The purpose of Star, Life, and Eagle Scout requirements calling for Scouts to be active for a period of months involves impact. Since we are preparing young people to make a positive difference in our American society, we determine a member is “active” when the member’s level of activity in Scouting, whether high or minimal, has had a sufficiently positive influence toward this end.

Scouting is a year-round program administered by the adult leaders. Units should not be taking time off during the summer or at other times of the year. Regardless of a unit’s expectations or policy, if a unit takes time off it must count that time toward the Scout’s active participation requirement. The Scout must not be penalized because the unit has chosen not to meet or conduct other activities for a period of time.

Use the following three sequential tests to determine whether the requirement has been met. The first and second are required, along with either the third or its alternative.

1. The Scout is registered. The youth is registered in the unit for at least the time period indicated in the requirement. It should also be indicated by the youth in some way, through word or action, that the youth considers himself or herself a member. If a youth was supposed to have been registered, but for whatever reason was not, discuss with the local council registrar the possibility of back-registering the youth.
2. The Scout is in good standing. A Scout is considered in “good standing” with a unit as long as the Scout has not been dismissed for disciplinary reasons. The Scout must also be in good standing with the local council and the Boy Scouts of America. (In the rare case the Scout is not in good standing, communications will have been delivered.)
3. The Scout meets the unit’s reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained. If, for the time period required, a Scout or qualifying Venturer or Sea Scout meets those aspects of the unit’s pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then Scout is considered active and the requirement is met. Time counted as “active” need not be consecutive. Scouts may piece together any times they have been active and still qualify. If a Scout does not meet the unit’s reasonable expectations, the alternative that follows must be offered.

Units are free to establish additional expectations on uniforming, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc., but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement.

Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met:

If a Scout has fallen below the unit’s activity-oriented expectations, then the reason must be due to other positive endeavors—in or out of Scouting—or due to noteworthy circumstances that have prevented a higher level of participation.

A Scout in this case is still considered “active” if a board of review can agree that Scouting values have already taken hold and have been exhibited. This might be evidenced, for example, in how the Scout lives life and relates to others in the community, at school, in religious life, or in Scouting. It is also acceptable to consider and “count” positive activities outside Scouting when they, too, contribute to the Scout’s character, citizenship, leadership, or mental and physical fitness. Remember: It is not so much about what a Scout has done. It is about what the Scout is able to do and how the Scout has grown.

Define "patched up" in this specific case please.  What is the time window between the first and last month's of service that the scout is claiming?  How much of the patchwork was continuous? Was the scout otherwise active during that same window or did he disappear because he made the decision to pursue something else (all decisions have opportunity costs)?  Is the 6 month continuous service applied consistently in the unit?  Was it known in advance?

I was on higher ground.  Dug 10 Miles of trenches at a minimum.  Sorry!

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I am in Circle Ten Council.  I am also Key 3, so I got the recharter info today.  

Surprised by an additional $30 "Council Membership Fee" for all youth and adults.

$96 for a kid and $72 for adults all of a sudden

you're getting off cheap.  My council took full advantage of the nationally approved council service fee.  It will be $126/youth for my kids to recharter for next year($66 national and $60 Council because they announced before National did), $75 or so dollars for adults.

Have someone on the committee sign for the CC and ask the IH to sign for the CoR.  Nobody is checking signature cards or anything.

11 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

How would ownership of properties be handled?  Under any of these potential outcomes, it would seem wise to separate ownership and management of properties from the councils in order to protect the assets from future suits.  Under the hypothetical, I might suggest that a separate property organization be formed to own Big City Scout Reservation and the training center.  Between the investment bankers from the former Rich Folks council and the members of the former council camping committees of predecessor councils, there would be plenty of talent to get that done.  It would be best to establish the new corporation and make the property transfers as soon as the bankruptcy is over.  A benefit is that the new entity could probably do a better job of figuring out how to generate some Private sector cash income for off-season property use.

This would be interesting in that a separate management company would have no incentive to service only Scouts BSA units during the summer.  Nor would there be an incentive to focus on Merit Badge work.  They wouldn't be bound by BSA camp standards or the G2SS.  They might cater to Scouts BSA units for a year or two but that wouldn't last long.

Seasonal Scouts is an interesting idea, although we'd need something with a different acronym.  Maybe the program could work something like this:

• We'd divide a geographical region into chunks, maybe we'd call them Districts or Councils
• Each District or Council would have to recruit a few Counselors to work with the Seasonal Scouts
• The Counselors could coordinate occasional events to introduce the Seasonal Scouts and their parents to each other
• Rather than have the Seasonal Scouts join and move in/out of a traditional unit which could be disruptive to those units, they could just join the District/Council at Large
• At the occasional events (monthly? maybe quarterly) the Seasonal Scouts could meet other like-minded and similarly scheduled Seasonal Scouts
• Those like-minded and similarly scheduled Seasonal Scouts could coordinate activities together, with guidance from their Counselor(s) and Parents, even high adventure
• Since they'd be full BSA members, they could also join their District/Council contingents for High Adventure trips or other activities
• Council Summer campus could even have Seasonal Scout Troops where Seasonal Scouts could drop into a traditional summer camp experience with other Seasonal scouts.  

Sounds a lot like this, https://www.scouting.org/commissioners/lone-scout/.  

On 8/27/2020 at 6:16 PM, Cburkhardt said:

Let's have some fun with this to lighten our spirits

I guess a GIF from the greatest post-apocalyptic movie franchise in history doesn't qualify as having fun @MattR?  Smdh.

On 8/26/2020 at 6:32 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Boyce felt that the program of the BSA did not help the rural boy who could not find enough other boys to form a troop or a patrol. James E. West, the first Chief Scout Executive of the BSA, disagreed with Boyce's concept, believing that the 4-H program was fulfilling the role.

It was true then, and it's true today.  Lone Scouting could have the ability to improve membership in rural areas that struggle to meet the minimum numbers of youth and adults for a BSA unit.  Although I don't know that it could compete with 4-H/FFA combination, especially as they've broadened their appeal over the years.  4-H has advantages that scouting doesn't, e.g. taxpayer funding, but their model seems similar to what @David CO describes.  And, they are clearly doing something right, 6 million kids, 500k volunteers, 3500 professionals according to one article I read.  They seem to have pulled off STEM, and specialty clubs (i.e. Crews), and family involvement, and bridged the Rural/Urban divide.  There might be lessons to be learned from both Lone Scouts and 4-H.  Instead of formal Troops, why not have a Scouting club in an area if there are only 1 or 2 kids from 2 or 3 little towns?  Let the kids and the parents set the program rather than being advancement driven.  Maybe they only meet once a month and camp a few times a year.  Maybe they have Deer Camp instead of Summer Camp?  IDK, the possibilities are endless.

It would have taken way less words if you'd just said Chicago/C7.  Anyway, the short answer is nothing is going to happen at this point because it's too late.  The councils that can afford to pay will, and then they'll sit back to watch how everything shakes out.  No board is going to take on the liabilities of a weak neighboring council at this point.  The councils that only have liquidate/merge as their options will be liquidated.  There will be a number of units that will be council-free for a period while the survivors hold cage matches for territory after the discharge.  Done correctly, the cage matches will be great fundraisers! 

People get into bad relationships.  They think if I work harder I can change my partner and then things will be perfect!  Or, if I work harder I can change myself to make my partner happy and then things will be perfect!  Both scenarios are a lie and disastrous for both party's health.  Now it's possible for the parties to find compromise to save their relationship but it requires change from both.  That's the question you have to answer with regards to the Scoutreach unit.   You have invested in the relationship and are struggling because your partner doesn't seem interested in changing to meet your vision of the relationship.  Are you willing to compromise to meet them in the middle?  Are they willing to change to meet you?  If the answer to either is no then move on.

This is a completely independent question from whether to be the SM for your old troop.  On paper I like the idea of a 20-something SM but you'd need firm commitment from the committee and ASM corps especially if you want to Make any changes.

8 hours ago, Momleader said:

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss07/#b

See #13...
 

as the mom of a varsity level Fencer and Eagle Scout I can tell you  the protective equipment keeps the fencer safe. Literally scoring is done electronically meaning if the tip of the epee, foil or saber touches the opponent it’s considered a hit. And it doesn’t have to be a hard touch. 
 Once again - the lawyers at BubbleWrap, No BooBoos and Son have missed the point of something that kids can learn and have fun with. 
 

did you see that #14 includes no sock throwing game?  So the snowball fight in July with clean rolled up socks is off the calendar. And no, we’re not playing Red Rover Red Rover in its place - you might sweat or strain your vocal chords.  Go sit down and make slime

You are operating under the false premise that the G2SS is about safety.  It's not.  It's about BSA image management.  They don't want boys competing with each other one-on -one for fear someone might feel bad.  

3 hours ago, Navybone said:

When you are looking at reporting on such issues as protest and BLM, I would ask that you do keep a sharp eye on what is being reported.  This is a great article by NYT on Russian disinformation and an attempt to widen the gulf btwn the political parties.  We have issues in this country, lets not help Russia (or Chinese) attempts to bring us down from within.  Question the reporting, even if it is confirming your own bias. 

About three years ago, when it was BLM versus Blue lives matter in the press all the time, Twitter was able to track the post made by russian trolls and how they would insert them selves into a conversation with a centrist point of view, and then pull it wider to the polar extremes. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/russia-disinformation-election-meddling.html

 

Sorry @Navybone but you dismissed one series of reports based on bias.  When shown a different report from a mainstream media outlet you deflect to Russians?  That's laughable but typical.  Beyond that, anyone who has actually picked up a copy of the SunTimes in the last 10 years knows exactly where their politics lie.

21 hours ago, Navybone said:

Interesting - I read the actual Sun-Times article, and it attributes the quote to Ariel Atkins, 29, who is not identified as a BLM organizer   Where it is attributed to a BLM organizer is, The Sun, the Washington Times, the NY Post  which are all "strongly biased toward conservative causes" based on Media Bias/Fact Check. 

And she obviously does not understand how reality works and is a fantasy land about how reparations work. 

Well, here it is from NBC Chicago then.  The organizer went on to say:

Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting.

“That is reparations,” Atkins said. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”

Additional thought: The Sun-Times is strongly biased towards liberal causes....

9 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

The BSA is in a precarious position with respect to its ability to successful reorganize.

40 minutes ago, David CO said:

In Chicago, you're happy just to have survived the day without having been the victim of a drive-by shooting.

 

Every time I drive down there.

34 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the difference between civil attorney and "ambulance chaser" seems to be "I like the plaintiff" or "I dislike the defendant."

Nah, more like the difference between being a pro and being a dog trolling for the misfortunate to exploit them.

"In a wreck and need a check?  Lxxxxx and Rxxx are the lawyers for you!  Call 222 22 22!"